1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to the field of systems for managing financial transactions and more specifically to systems for managing investments made on the behalf of investors by investment managers.
2. Related Art
Conventionally, some investors in securities, such as stocks and bonds, choose not to manage their own portfolios but instead rely on professional investment managers to manage and diversify their portfolios. One way to access the services of a professional investment manager is for an investor to buy shares in a mutual fund. In doing so, the investor is able to take advantage of a professional manager's expertise along with other investors. However, an investor in a mutual fund does not directly hold the assets purchased by the professional manager, thus the investor loses some of the tax benefits of directly holding an asset.
Another way that an investor can use professional investment managers and diversify a portfolio is by allowing a group of professional managers to directly manage multiple portfolios where the investor directly holds the assets in the multiple portfolios. This allows an investor to take advantage of a diversity of investment strategies and capture any tax benefits from directly holding an asset. However, this may create tax problems for the investor. For example, one manager may buy an asset too soon after another manager has sold the same asset, thus creating a “wash sale”. Another problem may occur when one manager buys an asset at the same time another manager sells the same asset, thus creating a taxable event for the investor without actually generating any income for the investor.
Therefore, a need exists for an investment management system that allows an investor to take advantage of the investment expertise from a variety of professional investment managers. In addition, the investment management system should allow the investor to reap the tax benefits from directly holding an asset without creating undue adverse tax consequences.
Also, conventionally, there are various broad categories of securities portfolio management. One conventional securities portfolio management category is active management wherein the securities are selected for a portfolio individually based on economic, financial, credit, and/or business analysis; on technical trends; on cyclical patterns; etc. Another conventional category is passive management, also called indexing, wherein the securities in a portfolio duplicate those that make up an index. The securities in a passively managed portfolio are conventionally weighted by relative market capitalization weighting or equal weighting. Another middle ground conventional category of securities portfolio management is called enhanced indexing, in which a portfolio's characteristics, performance and holdings are substantially dominated by the characteristics, performance and holdings of the index, albeit with modest active management departures from the index.
The present invention relates generally to the passive and enhanced indexing categories of portfolio management. A securities market index, by intent, reflects an entire market or a segment of a market. A passive portfolio based on an index may also reflect the entire market or segment. Often every security in an index is held in the passive portfolio. Sometimes statistical modeling is used to create a portfolio that duplicates the profile, risk characteristics, performance characteristics, and securities weightings of an index, without actually owning every security included in the index. (Examples could be portfolios based on the Wilshire 5000 Equity Index or on the Lehman Aggregate Bond Index.) Sometimes statistical modeling is used to create the index itself such that it duplicates the profile, risk characteristics, performance characteristics, and securities weightings of an entire class of securities. (The Lehman Aggregate Bond Index is an example of this practice.)
Indexes are generally all-inclusive of the securities within their defined markets or market segments. In most cases indexes may include each security in the proportion that its market capitalization bears to the total market capitalization of all of the included securities. The only common exceptions to market capitalization weighting are equal weighting of the included securities (for example the Value Line index or the Standard & Poors 500 Equal Weighted Stock Index, which includes all of the stocks in the S&P 500 on a list basis; each stock given equal weighting as of a designated day each year) and share price weighting, in which share prices are simply added together and divided by some simple divisor (for example, the Dow Jones Industrial Average). Conventionally, passive portfolios are built based on an index weighted using one of market capitalization weighting, equal weighting, and share price weighting.
Most commonly used stock market indices are constructed using a methodology that is based upon either the relative share prices of a sample of companies (such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average) or the relative market capitalization of a sample of companies (such as the S&P 500 Index or the FTSE 100 Index). The nature of the construction of both of these types of indices means that if the price or the market capitalization of one company rises relative to its peers it is accorded a larger weighting in the index. Alternatively, a company whose share price or market capitalization declines relative to the other companies in the index is accorded a smaller index weighting. This can create a situation where the index, index funds, or investors who desire their funds to closely track an index, are compelled to have a higher weighting in companies whose share prices or market capitalizations have already risen and a lower weighting in companies that have seen a decline in their share price or market capitalization.
Advantages of passive investing include: a low trading cost of maintaining a portfolio that has turnover only when an index is reconstituted, typically once a year; a low management cost of a portfolio that requires no analysis of individual securities; and no chance of the portfolio suffering a loss—relative to the market or market segment the index reflects—because of misjudgments in individual securities selection.
Advantages of using market capitalization weighting as the basis for a passive portfolio include that the index (and therefore a portfolio built on it) remains continually ‘in balance’ as market prices for the included securities change, and that the portfolio performance participates in (i.e., reflects) that of the securities market or market segment included in the index.
The disadvantages of market capitalization weighting passive indexes, which can be substantial, center on the fact that any under-valued securities are underweighted in the index and related portfolios, while any over-valued securities are over weighted. Also, the portfolio based on market capitalization weighting follows every market (or segment) bubble up and every market crash down. Finally, in general, portfolio securities selection is not based on a criteria that reflects a better opportunity for appreciation than that of the market or market segment overall.
Price or market capitalization based indices can contribute to a ‘herding’ behavior on the behalf of investors by effectively compelling any of the funds that attempt to follow these indices to have a larger weighting in shares as their price goes up and a lower weighting in shares that have declined in price. This creates unnecessary volatility, which is not in the interests of most investors. It may also lead to investment returns that have had to absorb the phenomenon of having to repeatedly increase weightings in shares after they have risen and reduce weightings in them after they have fallen.
Capitalization-weighted indexes (“cap-weighted indexes”) dominate the investment industry today, with approximately $2 trillion currently invested. Unfortunately, cap-weighted indexes suffer from an inherent flaw as they overweight all overvalued stocks and underweight all undervalued stocks. This causes cap-weighted indexes to under-perform relative to indexes that are immune to this shortcoming. In addition, cap-weighted indexes are vulnerable to speculative bubbles and emotional bear markets which may unnaturally drive up or down stock prices respectively.
It is a well established empirical conclusion of investment theory that cap-weighting is not mean-variance optimal. This conclusion holds because weighting schemes based on market price, including cap-weighting, overweight 100% of overvalued stocks and underweight 100% of undervalued stocks. Both mathematically and empirically, this over and under weighting problem inherent to cap-weighting leads to a return drag of 200 bps per year in the U.S. and more than 200 bps per year internationally.
One example of the phenomenon comes from the recent stock market bubble of 1997-2000, when, e.g., Internet network service provider Cisco comprised nearly 5% of the S&P 500. At its peak in 2000, Cisco traded at $70 per share. Since March 2000, Cisco has fallen to approximately 12% of its peak, dragging down S&P 500 performance of which it comprised 5%.
While it is difficult or impossible to know the true fair value of a company, what is known is that if an overvalued company's weight in an index is determined by market capitalization, then the company will be over-weighted in the index. Conversely, if a company's weight is determined by market capitalization and it is undervalued, it will be underweighted in a capitalization-weighted index.
Over the past 40 years, the largest stock by market capitalization in the S&P 500 has underperformed the average stock in the index over a 10-year time period by an average of 40%. The largest 10 stocks by market capitalization have underperformed the average stock over the subsequent 10-year time frame by an average of 26%. Yet, cap-weighted indexes continue to invest 20-30% of their value in the largest 10 stocks by market cap, despite the fact that they under-perform the average stock in the index, because the stocks are selected and weighted using market capitalization, which by its nature over-weights over valued stocks and under-weights undervalued stocks.
Equal-weighted indexation is a popular alternative to cap-weighting but one that suffers from its own shortcomings. One significant problem with equal-weighted indexes is that they come out of the same cap-weighted universes as cap-weighted indexes. For example, the S&P Equal Weighted Index simply re-weights the 500 equities that comprise the S&P 500, retaining the bias already inherent to cap-weighted indexes.
High turnover and associated high costs are additional problems of equal-weighted indexes. Equal-weighted indexes include small illiquid stocks, which are required to be held in equal proportion to the larger, more liquid stocks in the index. These small illiquid stocks must be traded as often as the larger stocks but at a higher cost because they are less liquid.
What is needed then is an improved method of weighting financial objects in a portfolio based on an index that overcomes shortcomings of conventional solutions.